User Tag List

First 182627282930 Last

Results 271 to 280 of 295

  1. #271
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Bruh, the puritans democratized, constitutionalized, and republicanized America.
    Not the other way around.
    Sure, America and the world owe a lot to the Puritans. We don't appreciate them enough.

  2. #272
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearchingforPeace View Post
    Lol, attacking Reagan again.....you are so predictable.

    And wrong again..... you really missed my entire point (while using the selective quoting that you criticze others for).....

    Reagan used emotional appeals, but not to divide, but to unite. He wasn't Lee Atwater or Karl Rove. Reagan struck at basic themes long existing. He loved America and used emotional appeals to patriotism. He used emotional appeals to fairness when he mentioned welfare cheats. He used emotional appeals to liberty in his anti-communism.

    But the cheap divisive tactics are intended to force everyone into one of the two parties, to ignore the needs of everyday people. They are designed to obfuscate how much those outside the 1% have been screwed.
    I am consistent. I "selectively quoted" because I wished to respond only to that one point. Reagan very definitely used emotional appeals to divide. He made sure the American people had plenty of enemies and scapegoats, both foreign and domestic, to distract them from his domestic policies: the "evil empire", Central American communists, "welfare queens", trade unions, envrionmentalists, etc. He exploited the same white, male fears and resentments as Donald Trump does now, albeit with a less strident, more avuncular manner. I wouldn't be surprised if members of that group felt united by his rhetoric. Other people often didn't. The only positive result of his emotional agenda was restoring respect for our military.

    I will limit my criticism to this, as it relates to the deliberate use of wedge issues for political ends, in order to remain at least close to topic.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  3. #273
    breaking out of my cocoon SearchingforPeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    6,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I am consistent. I "selectively quoted" because I wished to respond only to that one point. Reagan very definitely used emotional appeals to divide. He made sure the American people had plenty of enemies and scapegoats, both foreign and domestic, to distract them from his domestic policies: the "evil empire", Central American communists, "welfare queens", trade unions, envrionmentalists, etc. He exploited the same white, male fears and resentments as Donald Trump does now, albeit with a less strident, more avuncular manner. I wouldn't be surprised if members of that group felt united by his rhetoric. Other people often didn't. The only positive result of his emotional agenda was restoring respect for our military.

    I will limit my criticism to this, as it relates to the deliberate use of wedge issues for political ends, in order to remain at least close to topic.
    Lol, rich... And again seemingly clueless to my entire point from my response to CP. Such can only be intentional, as you would seem smart enough to understand.

    Thanks for proving Haidt right.

    The US president should focus on improving things for the citizens of the USA, first and foremost. And Reagan challenged the evil empire, which was evil, in fact, and worldwide communism, when no one else believed it possible. And won. I suspect citizens of former Soviet puppets states appreciate what Reagan did for them, even if you seem to not understand.

    He didn't divide his constituents, he united them in support of the country. The USA in 1980 was on the path to being a failed state. If you had asked political scientists in 1980 which superpower was more likely to fail, I suspect that 95+% would have said the USA. That was Reagan succeeding, again.

    Reagan had a vision for the country that including personal freedom and fairness. Overburden of regulation limits personal freedom and welfare cheats attack fairness. The air traffic controllers were illegally striking, and endangered the country.......

    There is a reason 89% of the country approves of his presidency and 69% say he was outstanding as president. To dislike his presidency really puts you into a very small minority. link that is pretty unified.

    And no, he was nothing like Trump but you really seem incapable of understanding that. "White, male fears" is sexist and bigoted, btw....but you knew that.

    P.S. Perhaps those you criticze for "selective quoting" only do so because they too only wanted to respond to a single point.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Archilochus
    The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one.
    And I am not a hedgehog......

    -------------------

    Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" not "blessed are the conflict avoiders.....

    9w8 6w5 4w5 sx/so

    ----------------------

    “Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

  4. #274
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I am consistent. I "selectively quoted" because I wished to respond only to that one point. Reagan very definitely used emotional appeals to divide. He made sure the American people had plenty of enemies and scapegoats, both foreign and domestic, to distract them from his domestic policies: the "evil empire", Central American communists, "welfare queens", trade unions, envrionmentalists, etc. He exploited the same white, male fears and resentments as Donald Trump does now, albeit with a less strident, more avuncular manner. I wouldn't be surprised if members of that group felt united by his rhetoric. Other people often didn't. The only positive result of his emotional agenda was restoring respect for our military.

    I will limit my criticism to this, as it relates to the deliberate use of wedge issues for political ends, in order to remain at least close to topic.
    Not to take SfP's side on this, but your list of "wedge issues" is lame, akin to calling his political opponents "Democrats". There is a difference between stating which side of an issue you are on and what actual wedge issues are. Wedge issues are the "hot button" issues like the shooting in Orlando, or the incident in Ferguson, that immediately drive people into their political ideologies. A key feature of a wedge issue is that it cannot be resolved. Reagan signed a bill in California allowing more abortions, and his approach was very thoughtful and nuanced - he actually wasn't sure where he stood on the issue and researched it as best he could. It wasn't a wedge issue, then, because the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on it. After the Supreme Court ruled on it, and called it a "right", it became a wedge issue because people could only argue about it, not do anything about it. Similarly, mass shootings are wedge issues because no one can actually do anything about them (as I've argued elsewhere). Finally, BOTH SIDES bring up the wedge issue, because each side thinks it favors their own case over their opponents'.

    Calling the Soviets "the evil empire" wasn't a wedge issue: this was back in the days when there were plenty war-hawk Democrats. Same with communists in Central America (who were actually communist - this wasn't name-calling). Trade unions and environmentalists?!?! Really?! So when the Left promotes clean air, it's a wedge issue?! (See, "wedge issues" have to work both ways, hence the "wedge" part.) "Welfare queens" is the closest on your list, since I could see that perhaps being regarded as a race issue by some. But these mostly aren't (weren't) wedge issues, so much as typical political rhetoric, along the same emotional vein as "a chicken in every pot", casting one's own policies as being better than one's opponents'.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SearchingforPeace liked this post

  5. #275
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Not to take SfP's side on this, but your list of "wedge issues" is lame, akin to calling his political opponents "Democrats". There is a difference between stating which side of an issue you are on and what actual wedge issues are. Wedge issues are the "hot button" issues like the shooting in Orlando, or the incident in Ferguson, that immediately drive people into their political ideologies. A key feature of a wedge issue is that it cannot be resolved. Reagan signed a bill in California allowing more abortions, and his approach was very thoughtful and nuanced - he actually wasn't sure where he stood on the issue and researched it as best he could. It wasn't a wedge issue, then, because the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on it. After the Supreme Court ruled on it, and called it a "right", it became a wedge issue because people could only argue about it, not do anything about it. Similarly, mass shootings are wedge issues because no one can actually do anything about them (as I've argued elsewhere). Finally, BOTH SIDES bring up the wedge issue, because each side thinks it favors their own case over their opponents'.

    Calling the Soviets "the evil empire" wasn't a wedge issue: this was back in the days when there were plenty war-hawk Democrats. Same with communists in Central America (who were actually communist - this wasn't name-calling). Trade unions and environmentalists?!?! Really?! So when the Left promotes clean air, it's a wedge issue?! (See, "wedge issues" have to work both ways, hence the "wedge" part.) "Welfare queens" is the closest on your list, since I could see that perhaps being regarded as a race issue by some. But these mostly aren't (weren't) wedge issues, so much as typical political rhetoric, along the same emotional vein as "a chicken in every pot", casting one's own policies as being better than one's opponents'.
    I didn't include issues like abortion, for the reasons you mention. The issues I did include were hot-button (think PATCO, Iran Contra), and did "drive people into their ideologies", whether that be hawks vs. doves on the USSR and communists in general; environment vs. business interests; unions being good vs. bad; and how to handle the poor. These issues were brought up by people on both sides. Lots of issues can be made into a wedge if presented in very black and white terms in order to polarize the electorate. Also, I disagree that a true wedge issue must have no solution. To be honest, none of these issues has a clear solution. All require some degree of compromise. People are more willing to compromise if they feel like they are all in it together, part of one group pulling toward one goal. This is why turning an issue into a wedge is so harmful. It divides people into "us's" ant "them's" and gets each side so wrapped around the ideological axle that they are no longer able to work together. If this is what your idea of "no solution" is, then I suppose I would agree.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #276
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    Don't drink the Kool-aid people!
    I have no idea who the Kool-aid people are, but I'll try not to drink them.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz
    Likes Cloudpatrol, SpankyMcFly, uumlau liked this post

  7. #277
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I didn't include issues like abortion, for the reasons you mention. The issues I did include were hot-button (think PATCO, Iran Contra), and did "drive people into their ideologies", whether that be hawks vs. doves on the USSR and communists in general; environment vs. business interests; unions being good vs. bad; and how to handle the poor. These issues were brought up by people on both sides. Lots of issues can be made into a wedge if presented in very black and white terms in order to polarize the electorate. Also, I disagree that a true wedge issue must have no solution. To be honest, none of these issues has a clear solution. All require some degree of compromise. People are more willing to compromise if they feel like they are all in it together, part of one group pulling toward one goal. This is why turning an issue into a wedge is so harmful. It divides people into "us's" ant "them's" and gets each side so wrapped around the ideological axle that they are no longer able to work together. If this is what your idea of "no solution" is, then I suppose I would agree.
    If you go by "black and white" as a criterion, then, shit, it's all wedge issues as far as the eye can see. Politics does not equal "reasonable discussion". Politics is where all the difficult issues go because people cannot easily come to an agreement. Lack of agreement and arguing for your own side is par for the course. Rather, politicians engage in negotiation. The problem in recent years is that some major players have been so ideological that they saw no purpose in trying to persuade members of the opposition that negotiation seems to be a bit of a lost art form. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal both engaged in strong rhetoric, but they negotiated and agreed on legislation.

    A wedge issue is more like trolling on a forum, even used against those in one's own party. For example, one's conservative opponent is leading in the polls, but one's research team finds a bill on which he voted for a pro-choice law (perhaps a single line in 100 pages of legislation), and charge "He voted in favor of abortion!" The mentioning of the wedge issue, all by itself, strongly affects support. Same for gun control, and other hot topics. Environmentalism doesn't really count, for example, because conservatives are not against environmental laws in general, but rather weigh them against other considerations as a cost-benefit analysis. Nixon created the EPA, remember? So you get characterizations of nuanced opinions, yes, but not wedge issues.

    Seriously, conservatives WISH that mentioning the EPA making air quality standards too costly were a more emotionally charged issue. Global warming on the other hand IS a wedge issue. Create a thread on the economic effects of air quality standards and it will be fairly quiet and even-tempered. Create a thread on global warming, and watch the sparks fly. See the difference?

    As for what I mean "no one can do anything about it", yeah, that's partly what I mean. In the case of abortion, technically, you can do something about it, but changing a Supreme Court ruling takes decades, if it is possible at all. In the case of global warming, most proposed remedies are so costly they're non-starters, legislatively speaking, but you can use it to make the case to make incandescent light bulbs illegal. Legislating light bulbs, yes, implementing global warming remedies that might make a difference, not a chance in hell.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SearchingforPeace, SpankyMcFly liked this post

  8. #278
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    I have no idea who the Kool-aid people are, but I'll try not to drink them.
    Punctuality is not my strong suit
    "May you live all the days of your life"

  9. #279
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    Punctuality Punctuation is not my strong suit
    FTFY
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #280
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    FTFY
    I appreciate it but it wasn't a mistake
    "May you live all the days of your life"

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 11:20 PM
  2. Women's equality: demanding equal rights without offering equal behavior since 1872
    By netzealot in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 262
    Last Post: 03-12-2013, 01:03 PM
  3. Te and Fe are always 'right'
    By PeaceBaby in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 06:26 AM
  4. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. "Guns Are Good" Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 06:53 PM
  5. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO